Re: GNATS needs some work (autoconf/59)

From:

Akim Demaille

Subject:

Re: GNATS needs some work (autoconf/59)

Date:

31 Jan 2001 15:29:14 +0100

User-agent:

Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Crater Lake)

>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Van Holder <address@hidden> writes:
Tim> I suppose so. My main point was that there were 2 different
Tim> issues related to path separators (build & _HOST_), which the PR
Tim> didn't seem to take into account.
Personally, at least for the time being, we don't care about HOST: as
said by Pavel, only specific packages will need it, and they certainly
need it so badly that they already perform their tests. And if they
don't, the simple fact that Autoconf supports some HOST-path-sep test
will not make these package HOST-path-sep aware.
So let's drop this.
But BUILD-path-sep *does* matter, and will be a significant win.
>> [suggested test snipped]
Tim> I suppose this would be a better way to do it (or rather, the
Tim> Demaillator Edition of this test :-) ).
:) :) :)
Tim> I'll try this out on DJGPP and Cygwin bashes and whip up a patch
Tim> if it works.
Could you describe precisely how it works? In fact, may I ask you to
complete the documentation of PATH in autoconf.texi to explain how it
works on Cygwin and DJGPP? Maybe Earnie would have good hints to
give.
Because I seem to have understood we kinda can have ; or : as a PATH
sep on Cygwin. But then, the test suggested above might not be right,
since we will have to adjust ourselves to the choice made by the
user. Autoconf by itself does not care extending PATH, it wants to be
able *split* it.
Tim> OK to add this to the startup code, or would you prefer to have
Tim> it AC_REQUIRE/AC_EXPAND_ONCE'd by those macros using a pathsep
Tim> (such as AC_CHECK_PROG/AC_PATH_PROG)?
Hm, let them be in AS_, forget Autoconf.
PS/ Could you also add some doc about COMSPEC etc. in autoconf.texi?
You're currently burned for code, but documenting is OK :)